1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The defendant is the co-defendant B of the first instance trial.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In the loan case of Gwangju District Court 2007Kadan102316, the FF corporation transferred the claim of K through L limited company filed a lawsuit against the Co-Defendant B Co-Defendant B Co-Defendant B Co-Defendant B Co-Defendant B Co-Defendant B Co-Defendant of the first instance trial (the former trade name before and after the alteration; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the defendant, etc., and B paid to F Co-Defendant 1,125,884,951 and 657,197,146 won as of October 31, 2007 through the day of complete payment, the amount calculated at the rate of 18% per annum from October 31, 2007 to the day of full payment, and the defendant et al. paid to F Co-Defendant 1,125,84,951 won as of April 29, 2008.

B. The above judgment reached May 2, 2008 and became final and conclusive on May 16, 2008 with respect to the Defendant, but served on May 24, 2008 with respect to B and became final and conclusive on June 8, 2008.

C. On November 1, 2010, F Co., Ltd. transferred claims based on the said final judgment to the Plaintiff (i.e., J Co., Ltd. from April 1, 2015 to J Co., Ltd., and each of the Plaintiff on December 4, 2017) and completed notification of the transfer of claims around that time.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In order to extend the prescription period, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is jointly and severally filed with the Defendant with the limit of KRW 100,000,000 and its delay damages, which are part of the final and conclusive judgment amount, to the extent of KRW 580,00,000.

However, the interruption of the prescription against the principal obligor shall also be effective as against the guarantor (Article 440 of the Civil Act). If the prescription against the principal obligor is interrupted due to a judicial claim against the principal obligor, the prescription period for the guaranteed obligation shall also proceed again from the time the judgment against the principal obligor became final and conclusive. As seen above, the judgment of Gwangju District Court 2007Gadan102316 decided May 16, 2008 against the principal obligor, but it was finalized on June 8, 2008 as to B, which is the principal obligor, and thus, the guarantor.